Rand-hater Santorum heavily considering 2016 presidential run

[erowe1]

Only a supremely stupid or a religious person can look at the electoral trashing of Todd Akin and Richard Murdock and infer that the voters really want is more laws against abortion.

That's the narrative the media told you. I'm sure it's easy to parrot back and say that everyone who's smart agrees. I don't buy it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Yes. He voted against some federal abortion laws because he was opposed to creating a federal abortion police. Although he did vote in favor of the ban on partial birth abortion, so I don't really even see how anyone can say that Ron believes that abortion should be entirely a state issue. He also co-sponsored and advocated a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution banning abortion, which is about as pro life as you can possibly get.

In an interview with Reason Magazine, Nick Gillespie asked Justin Amash about his position on abortion and whether it should be a federal or state issue. Justin replied that he's 100% pro life and believes that the issue falls under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/03/28/talking-debt-obamacare-and-abortion-with

32:38 mark

I guess I'm probably technically less pro-life than these guys... because I don't really like the 14th amendment argument,. The more I listen to it, the less I like it. The intent of the 14th was clearly to guarantee rights to all persons "Born or Naturalized in the United States." I think the 14th amendment was a mistake anyway, and should be repealed (Not because I have a problem with birthright citizenship though, its because I have a problem with the Federal government being able to impose the Bill of Rights on the states, I think that's just asking for trouble) and I also consider it invalid since the CSA only signed it at gunpoint. But even if I believed the amendment was valid, its intent is clear. Its supposed to apply to all persons "Born or naturalized in the United States." Saying that just because fetuses are also persons (Which is a proposition I agree with) it must apply doesn't make sense. It would be like if I said the following:

"I'm inviting everyone who is a senior in high school on Long Island to attend my house for a hypothetical 19th birthday party that I can't throw yet because I'm still only 18. All seniors shall bring a lunch bag because there are way too many of you to feed with my mother's food alone. Hope to see you all there."

There are obviously tons of seniors not on Long Island, but any reasonable person would read the "All seniors" section of this ridiculous paragraph as saying that all seniors in high school in Long Island. There are still seniors in high school not on Long Island, and senior citizens both on and off Long Island. All of these people are "Seniors", but they aren't the seniors we're addressing.

In the same way "All persons... born or naturalized in the United States..." Its not strictly defining personhood at all, but the passage is giving rights specifically to people that were born or naturalized here. Of course, the unborn still have rights, but that's irrelevant to this amendment.

My fear is that the twisting of the 14th to make it to apply to the unborn when its clearly not intended by the wording is that it opens the door (Which has already been opened) for liberal courts to liberally define other sections of the document as well. For instance, the whole twisting of "Necessary and proper" into "We can do whatever the crap we want" and "General Welfare" into "New Deal, Great Society, exc."

The more I think about it, the more I really don't like the constitution anyway. It was a good document but the wording left way too much open to interpretation. The 10th amendment SHOULD limit the constitution to the strictest reading possible, but apparently I can't even get everyone on RPF to agree with me. If I can't even convince you guys... the document isn't doing its job.

Regarding the PBA ban... I've been wondering about that one. I think that vote was a mistake. Interestingly, the most hardcore pro-life advocacy group, the American Right to Life movement, (This is an organization that supports NO exceptions) doesn't like the PBA ban either. I'm not convinced it actually saved anyone so much as it simply demanded a less gruesome murder method. More importantly, the Federal government has no jurisdiction over murder. Considering the pressure of the Santorum types about Ron Paul's voting record, I can understand why someone who doesn't understand the constitution (People like you, who at least get my argument but don't agree with it, would probably understand why RP voted against the PBA if that was what he had decided to do) would likely think he was voting in favor of a radical abortion procedure if he didn't vote for it. Personally, assuming I didn't fall to political pressure, I'd probably vote present on something like that, and probably any other abortion law. I couldn't vote for it because it would be a violation of my oath but I couldn't deliberately vote to stop them from protecting unborn children, if that makes sense.

That said, I support an amendment to ban abortion everywhere. I just want it done by amendment, not by a half-hearted unconstitutional measure.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

I'm sure this will make a few Rand-haters on this forum happy!!! woohoo FU Santorum.

 

[supermario21]

The item to note is that Ron doesn't like the 14th amendment at all, and thinks it's unconstitutional/shouldn't be enforced. Rand and Amash I know differ on that position. Reason had an article discussing Ron vs Rand on the 14th and the consensus was that Rand was more constitutionally sound.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I don't know all the facts, but I would not be surprised if the 13th and 15th were unconstitutional as well.

I actually don't understand Ron's problem with birthright citizenship.

Even if the 14this constituional, it definitely doesn't apply to the unborn under strict constructionism. Not because they aren't people (They are) but becasue they aren't the people being addressed. Its clear that citizens of Iran weren't being addressed by that amendment, even though such people are still clearly "Persons." In my ridiculously silly analogy paragraph, seniors who lived in New Jersey were not invited to my party but they are still seniors.

Abortion is still a state issue. I honestly could respect someone if they admitted that they flat out don't care about the constitution where human life is concerned. I don't give a crap about the laws when it comes to abortion for anyone BUT the Federal government. The way I look at it, Scott Roeder and other anti-abortion vigilantes are heroes. But I don't want FedGov acting outside the law.

Oh... and regarding the "Rand hater" comment, if anyone seriously thinks Santorum is better than Rand, they should forget both Santorum and Rand and just stick with Ron Paul, because that person is on crack and should probably not vote for any candidate who wants to punish them for that.

 

[Brett85]

@FreedomFanatic-I wouldn't necessarily say that I disagree with your position on the Constitutionality of federal involvement in abortion. It's an issue I've been torn on for some time. It's just that it seems to me like perhaps there can be more than one interpretation of the Constitution on this issue, since both Rand and Justin Amash seem to think that the 14th amendment should be used to protect the unborn at the federal level, while Ron disagrees. I'm just saying that if I were a member of Congress and felt convicted to vote for pro life bills, I would use the 5th and 14th amendments to justify the Constitutionality of these bills before I would ever use the commerce clause to justify it. There's absolutely no way that the commerce clause should ever be used to justify federal abortion laws, if you believe in a strict interpration of that clause. I realize that using the 5th and 14th amendments as a justification may be a stretch as well, but it's not nearly as much of a stretch as using the commerce clause. I guess I'm just saying that there's enough wiggle room that I would possibly have to use those amendments as a justification for my votes, because I care about defending human life first and foremost. If there were a bill that I had to vote on that I just felt was blatantly unconstitutional, I suppose I would just have to do what you said and simply abstain from voting or vote "present." I don't think I could ever bring myself to actually vote against any pro life legislation, because the issue is just way to important to me.

 

[Brett85]

Also, I wouldn't ever claim that someone isn't pro life simply because they oppose federal abortion laws from a 10th amendment perspective. Santorum's attacks on Ron Paul on this issue were very misleading since he was trying to imply that Ron sometimes voted against federal abortion laws because he was pro choice, when in reality he simply felt that these laws violated the 10th amendment.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Only a supremely stupid or a religious person can look at the electoral trashing of Todd Akin and Richard Murdock and infer that the voters really want is more laws against abortion.

Only a supremely stupid person cannot infer that Akin and Murdock's problems were over stupid comments about rape.

If you haven't noticed the steady progress against abortion at the state level since 1973, you're just not paying attention. Even Ruth Bader Gingsburg recently lamented how the pro-abortion crowd is losing ground because of Roe v. Wade.

 

[Christian Liberty]

@FreedomFanatic-I wouldn't necessarily say that I disagree with your position on the Constitutionality of federal involvement in abortion. It's an issue I've been torn on for some time. It's just that it seems to me like perhaps there can be more than one interpretation of the Constitution on this issue, since both Rand and Justin Amash seem to think that the 14th amendment should be used to protect the unborn at the federal level, while Ron disagrees. I'm just saying that if I were a member of Congress and felt convicted to vote for pro life bills, I would use the 5th and 14th amendments to justify the Constitutionality of these bills before I would ever use the commerce clause to justify it. There's absolutely no way that the commerce clause should ever be used to justify federal abortion laws, if you believe in a strict interpration of that clause. I realize that using the 5th and 14th amendments as a justification may be a stretch as well, but it's not nearly as much of a stretch as using the commerce clause. I guess I'm just saying that there's enough wiggle room that I would possibly have to use those amendments as a justification for my votes, because I care about defending human life first and foremost. If there were a bill that I had to vote on that I just felt was blatantly unconstitutional, I suppose I would just have to do what you said and simply abstain from voting or vote "present." I don't think I could ever bring myself to actually vote against any pro life legislation, because the issue is just way to important to me.

Fair enough. Yeah, its pretty darn important to me as well, hence why I'd vote "Present" if the law was unconstitutional. I'd probably let them go ahead and do it. Unless the bill itself was actually bad for some reason.

And yeah, the 5th and 14th is still better than the commerce clause. The only way I can even imagine that one working is if somone crossed state lines to get an abortion. That probably technically works, but there's no way we should even have a commerce clause that's that broad. I'd strike it from the constitution entirely honestly. I don't even see a huge reason why states shouldn't be able to produce their own currencies, since my ideal is that government would remove itself from currency anyway (Which would likely lead to gold or silver tender on the market.)

Not to pick on Rand or Amash, but honestly, both of them are playing the game much more than Ron did. Ron Paul was also much more consistent in general. If I were going to trust any of the three on the constittuionality of something, I'd probably trust Ron first. Honestly, I think Rand probably thinks its constitutional for the same reason that you do... because you want it to. So do I, but I can't intellectually justify it so I support a new amendment.

It won't happeen I know, but I'm just saying, if I had a chance to vote for that amendment, I would. Of course, Conservatives are perpetually busy with the "One mand one woman" amendment so they'll never do this one (lol.)

Also, I wouldn't ever claim that someone isn't pro life simply because they oppose federal abortion laws from a 10th amendment perspective. Santorum's attacks on Ron Paul on this issue were very misleading since he was trying to imply that Ron sometimes voted against federal abortion laws because he was pro choice, when in reality he simply felt that these laws violated the 10th amendment.

This is exactly correct. Plus, Santorum thinks everything is a Federal issue. I've never heard him say ANYTHING should be left to the states. Santorum, like Johnson, but for opposite reasons, would wish the 10th out of existance. I don't think its just abortion with Rick like it is with you... its everything...

 

[Virgil]

As someone from Missouri. That comment that Akin made instantly lost him the race, from young to old the outrage of that comment propelled McCaskill
to win.

-Virgil

 

[anaconda]

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Rand has to win Iowa and by a large margin. I truly believe if Ron did just half of the retail-politicking that Santorum did, he would have won the Iowa poll.

Ron would've won Iowa if it wasn't rigged.

 

[compromise]

As someone from Missouri. That comment that Akin made instantly lost him the race, from young to old the outrage of that comment propelled McCaskill
to win.

-Virgil

It wasn't only the comment itself, it was all the establishment Repubs denouncing the comment and helping it to spread in the liberal media. I'm glad Rand stood with Akin and Mourdock.

 

[Dogsoldier]

Hmmmm....controlled opposition....I see the last election all over again....The neocons will run 10 or more people to drown out Rand.

 

[MaxPower]

I am greatly comforted by the certainty embedded deep within the core of my being that Rick Santorum will never be president.

 

[Warlord]

Hmmmm....controlled opposition....I see the last election all over again....The neocons will run 10 or more people to drown out Rand.

It won't matter he'll beat them all. He is that good.

 

[Intoxiklown]

I'm sure Santorum had some die hard supporters. But I think most of his support in '12 was anti-Romney/Romneycare.

This.

Santorm did well down here due to him not being Romney the Mormon. Contrary to popular belief, Rand Paul is QUITE popular down here. Sweet Christ, it kills me at how much an "anti-label" crowd LOVES throwing labels if the subject is the south.

 

[JCDenton0451]

Only a supremely stupid person cannot infer that Akin and Murdock's problems were over stupid comments about rape.

If you haven't notice the steady progress against abortion at the state level since 1973, you're just not paying attention. Even Ruth Bader Gingsburg recently lamented how the pro-abortion crowd is losing ground because of Roe v. Wade.

Not stupid, extreme. You want to ban abortion in cases of rape, that makes you extreme, that makes you look irrational to the 80% of people in this country.

The steady progress you're referring to is limited to red states. The Religious Right there is getting increasingly desperate, because they're beginning to understand: they don't have much time left. The demographic and generational change will make them irrelevant in the not too distant future.

 

[erowe1]

As someone from Missouri. That comment that Akin made instantly lost him the race, from young to old the outrage of that comment propelled McCaskill
to win.

-Virgil

I think you're right about Akin. His was a major mistake. I don't think Mourdock's was anything like that. But Mourdock keeps getting grouped with Akin. As soon as the news spread about the Mourdock debate people started saying he did the same thing Akin did. Then, instead of Akin being an aberrant fool, Akin and Mourdock together became prototypes of a pattern of the social conservative who can't win.

 

[JCDenton0451]

Yes overwhelmingly voters support abortion in cases of rape and incest. The media framed that and kept it focused that way on mourdock and akin. Let a prolife republican run against a progressive democrat that supports abortion for convenience, late term abortion and snipping the spines of live born fetuses, the repubican is going to CRUSH the progressive. The Americans overwhelmingly support heavier restriction on those abortions.

Obama supports ALL of these things, he just doesn't particularly advertise it, and the Media never asked him hard questions about abortion. But that's beside the point. This is Rand Paul's forum after all, and his position on abortion is out of touch with the overwhelming majority of voters. I'm glad that at least one person on this board understands that.